Subject: Re: [lojban] If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was an approach to attitudinals)

From: Richard Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:35:29 -0500

Craig wrote:
> When was the last time anyone was misunderstood about it? 

Recently, I think (though not specifically about {a'o}). I don't want
to get into a meta-argument about when this argument really started, so
if you don't agree I'll say in advance that it's fine with me. 

I thought this really started when pycn's reading of one of xod's
sentences was the exact opposite of xod's intended meaning. The essence
of the misunderstanding was whether pycn was correct to assume that
xod's sentence was an assertion. (I'm not saying that pycn made a
mistake reading the sentence--the fact that both sides had merit, IMO,
is why a convention would be such a good thing)

Despite some objections I've heard to the placement proposal, I don't
think adding this piece of information to the attitudinal does anything
to make it 1) more like a selbri or 2) less emotive. It just cuts the
room for misunderstandings in half. The exact relationship of the
attitudinal to the sentence is still unspecified.

Had the Book (which I don't own yet, so I'm going by others' statements)
been consistent with itself about attitudinals, I doubt the conversation
would have gone so far. But since the claim has been made that _no_
usage is completely consistent with the Book, it doesn't seem too
blasphemous to set a standard that is consistent, (mostly) compatible,
and simple.

Here is the text of the mail with the misunderstanding I'm referring to:

----------
Well, I did not in fact claim that: I said I would probably have (given
the 
choices between "foolish" and "evil" for two events) reversed xod's
choices. 
Happily ther were other choices and I made those. And xod does indeed 
*assert* that translating Alice is evil. xod also *expresses* a number
of 
emotional responses to that claim, some of them apparently at variance
with 
the claim made -- though they might be merely shock at finding oneself 
making such a claim. I am still unsure what empathetic opining is --xod
got 
so into my head that agreement resulted? The sentence in question is < 
.a'unaicai pe'idai le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci .ianai .u'e > in which
the 
only assertion is < le nu fanva la .alis. cu palci >; the rest is
emotive 
response. I suspect xod meant the assertion to be in quotes or some of
the 
emotive expressions to be assertions to the effect that xod reesponded
thus 
to my assertion that... But what is written is written, and I refuse to
be 
blamed for taking people at their word. 

Richard